Problems in Gas Hydrates: Practical Guidelines for Field Remediation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problems in Gas Hydrates: Practical Guidelines for Field Remediation J.E. PAEZ; J.E. PAEZ Dalhousie University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar R. Blok R. Blok MARTEC LTD. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 2001. Paper Number: SPE-69424-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/69424-MS Published: March 25 2001 Connected Content Related to: Practical Guidelines for Field Remediation of Gas Hydrates Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation PAEZ, J.E., and R. Blok. "Problems in Gas Hydrates: Practical Guidelines for Field Remediation." Paper presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/69424-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference Search Advanced Search AbstractNatural gas hydrate formation is a costly and challenging problem for the oil and gas industry. In recent years, two new families of chemical additives have been commercially developed to prevent hydrate plugging problems in production lines. This approach is commonly known as low-dose inhibition, and the two families are kinetic inhibitors and anti-agglomerants. Evolution of these new products is proceeding at a rapid pace, in order to meet goals of covering a greater range of operating conditions and finding an economically and environmentally attractive alternative to thermodynamic inhibition.Successful deployment of low-dose inhibitors depends on an appropriate selection of inhibitors and a complete understanding of the system. Based on a synthesis of available literature on application of low-dose inhibitors to hydrocarbon processing equipment and handling facilities, this paper describes a methodology for designing a deployment strategy. This guide provides a systematic approach to aid production engineers in deploying low-dose inhibitors in existing facilities and new developments. An easy-to-follow flow chart is given.The information provided in this article was compiled from published data, and experience provided by several companies in the oil and gas industry.IntroductionNatural gas hydrate formation is a costly and challenging problem for the oil and gas industry and tends to be most critical for offshore facilities. Since the time when hydrates were first identified1, the oil and gas industry has injected a constant flow of resources into the search for an economic and environment friendly solution to the problem of hydrate prevention.Thermodynamic inhibition has been the conventional approach to natural gas hydrate inhibition. System composition or operating conditions are altered so that over the range of operating temperatures and pressures, the hydrocarbon system falls outside the pressure-temperature region in which hydrate formation can occur. (See Figure 1)2.Keeping operating pressures and temperatures out of the hydrate formation region can be achieved by making system adjustments such as applying heat, using insulated pipelines, or adding chemical compounds (thermodynamic inhibitors) that change the behaviour of the new mixture. Keywords: society of petroleum engineers, practical guideline, spe 69424, ldis, upstream oil & gas, concentration, field trial, successful deployment, martec ltd, flow assurance Subjects: Flow Assurance, Hydrates This content is only available via PDF. 2001. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".